Iowa Republican ready to take up arms against her country

[Antares]

When would you, is even a simpler question.

i suppose in the absolute collapse of the country, when we no longer have recourse at the ballot box or in the courts, and when my life and the lives of others are in danger, that might be the time i would take up arms.
until then bantering about armed insurrection as if it was both necessary and acceptable is idiotic and irresponsible.

Defense is not "armed insurrection", you do realize that right?

Defense against what?

You have a whole slew of Constitutional options protecting you against the government. What is going to cause you to use guns against the government?

Really?

You want to argue over what YOU perceive as her "intent"?

You don't get to do that, why don't you "ask" her what she meant?

I'd be happy to hear her defend this

I'm sure she will be asked

She doesn't have to, you are nobody.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's all get back to reality here.

She was throwing red meat to a red meat congregation.

If push came to shove, she would call the police.

 

[rightwinger]

i suppose in the absolute collapse of the country, when we no longer have recourse at the ballot box or in the courts, and when my life and the lives of others are in danger, that might be the time i would take up arms.
until then bantering about armed insurrection as if it was both necessary and acceptable is idiotic and irresponsible.

Defense is not "armed insurrection", you do realize that right?

Defense against what?

You have a whole slew of Constitutional options protecting you against the government. What is going to cause you to use guns against the government?

Really?

You want to argue over what YOU perceive as her "intent"?

You don't get to do that, why don't you "ask" her what she meant?

I'd be happy to hear her defend this

I think it's hilarious that people like you think she was speaking in "NRA Code".

All she said was "defend"and you people are all running around screaming "treason","traitor", "insurrectionist".

Yes you are free to do that, but you look stupid doing it.

What did she mean?

Did the NRA know what she meant? That is raw meat to the NRA

 

[AvgGuyIA]

No...most Americans won't tolerate those who would take up arms against our country

Nice spin asshat
To defend against is not to take up arms against
Maybe you should try an easier topic to discuss.

"I believe in the right to defend myself and my family"

Nice catch, why would any of these assholes, even Jake be upset about anyone defending themselves?

the question is when does she see 'defense' with a gun as necessary?

When would you, is even a simpler question.

i suppose in the absolute collapse of the country, when we no longer have recourse at the ballot box or in the courts, and when my life and the lives of others are in danger, that might be the time i would take up arms.
until then bantering about armed insurrection as if it was both necessary and acceptable is idiotic and irresponsible.

And nobody is planning to take up arms, especially Joni. RW is spewing bullshit.

 

[rightwinger]

i suppose in the absolute collapse of the country, when we no longer have recourse at the ballot box or in the courts, and when my life and the lives of others are in danger, that might be the time i would take up arms.
until then bantering about armed insurrection as if it was both necessary and acceptable is idiotic and irresponsible.

Defense is not "armed insurrection", you do realize that right?

Defense against what?

You have a whole slew of Constitutional options protecting you against the government. What is going to cause you to use guns against the government?

Really?

You want to argue over what YOU perceive as her "intent"?

You don't get to do that, why don't you "ask" her what she meant?

I'd be happy to hear her defend this

I'm sure she will be asked

She doesn't have to, you are nobody.

Running for Senator, I think she has to

 

[Antares]

Defense is not "armed insurrection", you do realize that right?

Defense against what?

You have a whole slew of Constitutional options protecting you against the government. What is going to cause you to use guns against the government?

Really?

You want to argue over what YOU perceive as her "intent"?

You don't get to do that, why don't you "ask" her what she meant?

I'd be happy to hear her defend this

I think it's hilarious that people like you think she was speaking in "NRA Code".

All she said was "defend"and you people are all running around screaming "treason","traitor", "insurrectionist".

Yes you are free to do that, but you look stupid doing it.

What did she mean?

Did the NRA know what she meant? That is raw meat to the NRA

What did she say?

She said "defend" YOU added everything else

 

[Antares]

Defense is not "armed insurrection", you do realize that right?

Defense against what?

You have a whole slew of Constitutional options protecting you against the government. What is going to cause you to use guns against the government?

Really?

You want to argue over what YOU perceive as her "intent"?

You don't get to do that, why don't you "ask" her what she meant?

I'd be happy to hear her defend this

I'm sure she will be asked

She doesn't have to, you are nobody.

Running for Senator, I think she has to

Do you live in Iowa?

 

[ogibillm]

the question is when does she see 'defense' with a gun as necessary?

When would you, is even a simpler question.

i suppose in the absolute collapse of the country, when we no longer have recourse at the ballot box or in the courts, and when my life and the lives of others are in danger, that might be the time i would take up arms.
until then bantering about armed insurrection as if it was both necessary and acceptable is idiotic and irresponsible.

Defense is not "armed insurrection", you do realize that right?

that is a matter of opinion. say her home was condemned and purchased using imminent domain so it could be sold to a developer. perfectly legal and constitutional. she may see it as a violation of her rights and 'defend' against anyone looking to enforce that sale, but doing so would be armed insurrection.

That's not what she said,that is what you are reading into her remarks.

That's the point, she said "defend" only she gets to determine her intent,not us.

no, that's exactly what she said.

I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family -- whether it's from an intruder, or whether it's from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.

so if the government takes her house under imminent domain, would that be the government deciding that her rights weren't important?
see, we have her stating that it's okay to use guns against the government if the government feels your rights aren't important. what we don't have from her is what she believes that would mean.

either way, to the cliven bundys out there, this is exactly what they want to hear. it's validation for their armed resistance to the government. tell me how encouraging that kind of behavior is responsible

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Let's all get back to reality here.

She was throwing red meat to a red meat congregation.

If push came to shove, she would call the police.

What,like Biden telling blacks we want to put em back in chains?

 

[Antares]

When would you, is even a simpler question.

i suppose in the absolute collapse of the country, when we no longer have recourse at the ballot box or in the courts, and when my life and the lives of others are in danger, that might be the time i would take up arms.
until then bantering about armed insurrection as if it was both necessary and acceptable is idiotic and irresponsible.

Defense is not "armed insurrection", you do realize that right?

that is a matter of opinion. say her home was condemned and purchased using imminent domain so it could be sold to a developer. perfectly legal and constitutional. she may see it as a violation of her rights and 'defend' against anyone looking to enforce that sale, but doing so would be armed insurrection.

That's not what she said,that is what you are reading into her remarks.

That's the point, she said "defend" only she gets to determine her intent,not us.

no, that's exactly what she said.

I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family -- whether it's from an intruder, or whether it's from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.

so if the government takes her house under imminent domain, would that be the government deciding that her rights weren't important?
see, we have her stating that it's okay to use guns against the government if the government feels your rights aren't important. what we don't have from her is what she believes that would mean.

either way, to the cliven bundys out there, this is exactly what they want to hear. it's validation for their armed resistance to the government. tell me how encouraging that kind of behavior is responsible

"I believe in the right to defend myself and my family"

YOU are adding all of this into it, all she said was defend.
Sorry.

 

[ogibillm]

i suppose in the absolute collapse of the country, when we no longer have recourse at the ballot box or in the courts, and when my life and the lives of others are in danger, that might be the time i would take up arms.
until then bantering about armed insurrection as if it was both necessary and acceptable is idiotic and irresponsible.

Defense is not "armed insurrection", you do realize that right?

that is a matter of opinion. say her home was condemned and purchased using imminent domain so it could be sold to a developer. perfectly legal and constitutional. she may see it as a violation of her rights and 'defend' against anyone looking to enforce that sale, but doing so would be armed insurrection.

That's not what she said,that is what you are reading into her remarks.

That's the point, she said "defend" only she gets to determine her intent,not us.

no, that's exactly what she said.

I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family -- whether it's from an intruder, or whether it's from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.

so if the government takes her house under imminent domain, would that be the government deciding that her rights weren't important?
see, we have her stating that it's okay to use guns against the government if the government feels your rights aren't important. what we don't have from her is what she believes that would mean.

either way, to the cliven bundys out there, this is exactly what they want to hear. it's validation for their armed resistance to the government. tell me how encouraging that kind of behavior is responsible

"I believe in the right to defend myself and my family"

YOU are adding all of this into it, all she said was defend.
Sorry.

are you purposefully ignoring that she said she would use her gun against the government if it decided her rights were not important? if you aren't, what type of scenario do you think she had in mind when she said that?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Defense is not "armed insurrection", you do realize that right?

that is a matter of opinion. say her home was condemned and purchased using imminent domain so it could be sold to a developer. perfectly legal and constitutional. she may see it as a violation of her rights and 'defend' against anyone looking to enforce that sale, but doing so would be armed insurrection.

That's not what she said,that is what you are reading into her remarks.

That's the point, she said "defend" only she gets to determine her intent,not us.

no, that's exactly what she said.

I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family -- whether it's from an intruder, or whether it's from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.

so if the government takes her house under imminent domain, would that be the government deciding that her rights weren't important?
see, we have her stating that it's okay to use guns against the government if the government feels your rights aren't important. what we don't have from her is what she believes that would mean.

either way, to the cliven bundys out there, this is exactly what they want to hear. it's validation for their armed resistance to the government. tell me how encouraging that kind of behavior is responsible

"I believe in the right to defend myself and my family"

YOU are adding all of this into it, all she said was defend.
Sorry.

are you purposefully ignoring that she said she would use her gun against the government if it decided her rights were not important? if you aren't, what type of scenario do you think she had in mind when she said that?

Not sure why you find that so alarming. It is the purpose of the 2nd amendment after all.

 

[Antares]

Defense is not "armed insurrection", you do realize that right?

that is a matter of opinion. say her home was condemned and purchased using imminent domain so it could be sold to a developer. perfectly legal and constitutional. she may see it as a violation of her rights and 'defend' against anyone looking to enforce that sale, but doing so would be armed insurrection.

That's not what she said,that is what you are reading into her remarks.

That's the point, she said "defend" only she gets to determine her intent,not us.

no, that's exactly what she said.

I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family -- whether it's from an intruder, or whether it's from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.

so if the government takes her house under imminent domain, would that be the government deciding that her rights weren't important?
see, we have her stating that it's okay to use guns against the government if the government feels your rights aren't important. what we don't have from her is what she believes that would mean.

either way, to the cliven bundys out there, this is exactly what they want to hear. it's validation for their armed resistance to the government. tell me how encouraging that kind of behavior is responsible

"I believe in the right to defend myself and my family"

YOU are adding all of this into it, all she said was defend.
Sorry.

are you purposefully ignoring that she said she would use her gun against the government if it decided her rights were not important? if you aren't, what type of scenario do you think she had in mind when she said that?

I'm not ignoring anything but neither am I reading "insurrection" into it.

You are arguing that individuals should not be able to decide when they need to defend themselves?

 

[ogibillm]

that is a matter of opinion. say her home was condemned and purchased using imminent domain so it could be sold to a developer. perfectly legal and constitutional. she may see it as a violation of her rights and 'defend' against anyone looking to enforce that sale, but doing so would be armed insurrection.

That's not what she said,that is what you are reading into her remarks.

That's the point, she said "defend" only she gets to determine her intent,not us.

no, that's exactly what she said.

I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family -- whether it's from an intruder, or whether it's from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.

so if the government takes her house under imminent domain, would that be the government deciding that her rights weren't important?
see, we have her stating that it's okay to use guns against the government if the government feels your rights aren't important. what we don't have from her is what she believes that would mean.

either way, to the cliven bundys out there, this is exactly what they want to hear. it's validation for their armed resistance to the government. tell me how encouraging that kind of behavior is responsible

"I believe in the right to defend myself and my family"

YOU are adding all of this into it, all she said was defend.
Sorry.

are you purposefully ignoring that she said she would use her gun against the government if it decided her rights were not important? if you aren't, what type of scenario do you think she had in mind when she said that?

Not sure why you find that so alarming. It is the purpose of the 2nd amendment after all.

because in our modern times, with the multiple options for recourse available to us, taking up arms against the government is unacceptable.

 

[ogibillm]

that is a matter of opinion. say her home was condemned and purchased using imminent domain so it could be sold to a developer. perfectly legal and constitutional. she may see it as a violation of her rights and 'defend' against anyone looking to enforce that sale, but doing so would be armed insurrection.

That's not what she said,that is what you are reading into her remarks.

That's the point, she said "defend" only she gets to determine her intent,not us.

no, that's exactly what she said.

I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family -- whether it's from an intruder, or whether it's from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.

so if the government takes her house under imminent domain, would that be the government deciding that her rights weren't important?
see, we have her stating that it's okay to use guns against the government if the government feels your rights aren't important. what we don't have from her is what she believes that would mean.

either way, to the cliven bundys out there, this is exactly what they want to hear. it's validation for their armed resistance to the government. tell me how encouraging that kind of behavior is responsible

"I believe in the right to defend myself and my family"

YOU are adding all of this into it, all she said was defend.
Sorry.

are you purposefully ignoring that she said she would use her gun against the government if it decided her rights were not important? if you aren't, what type of scenario do you think she had in mind when she said that?

I'm not ignoring anything but neither am I reading "insurrection" into it.

You are arguing that individuals should not be able to decide when they need to defend themselves?

no, i'm arguing that she needs to explain what she meant. what scenario would warrant such action?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Leave it to RW to clearly make the case that he fully supports an oppressive Government...

Where did I say that?

I said I advocate citizens using their Constitutional freedoms to fight an oppressive Government. That is something I would expect a Senator to advocate

Talking points you were hired to spread around.

 

[Antares]

That's not what she said,that is what you are reading into her remarks.

That's the point, she said "defend" only she gets to determine her intent,not us.

no, that's exactly what she said.

I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family -- whether it's from an intruder, or whether it's from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.

so if the government takes her house under imminent domain, would that be the government deciding that her rights weren't important?
see, we have her stating that it's okay to use guns against the government if the government feels your rights aren't important. what we don't have from her is what she believes that would mean.

either way, to the cliven bundys out there, this is exactly what they want to hear. it's validation for their armed resistance to the government. tell me how encouraging that kind of behavior is responsible

"I believe in the right to defend myself and my family"

YOU are adding all of this into it, all she said was defend.
Sorry.

are you purposefully ignoring that she said she would use her gun against the government if it decided her rights were not important? if you aren't, what type of scenario do you think she had in mind when she said that?

I'm not ignoring anything but neither am I reading "insurrection" into it.

You are arguing that individuals should not be able to decide when they need to defend themselves?

no, i'm arguing that she needs to explain what she meant. what scenario would warrant such action?

Because YOU assume the worst.

She doesn't answer to you and you don't live in Iowa.

 

[rightwinger]

Defense against what?

You have a whole slew of Constitutional options protecting you against the government. What is going to cause you to use guns against the government?

Really?

You want to argue over what YOU perceive as her "intent"?

You don't get to do that, why don't you "ask" her what she meant?

I'd be happy to hear her defend this

I think it's hilarious that people like you think she was speaking in "NRA Code".

All she said was "defend"and you people are all running around screaming "treason","traitor", "insurrectionist".

Yes you are free to do that, but you look stupid doing it.

What did she mean?

Did the NRA know what she meant? That is raw meat to the NRA

What did she say?

She said "defend" YOU added everything else

"I do believe in the right to carry"

She didn't tell those gun nuts what she would carry. Could be flowers or something

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

That's not what she said,that is what you are reading into her remarks.

That's the point, she said "defend" only she gets to determine her intent,not us.

no, that's exactly what she said.

I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family -- whether it's from an intruder, or whether it's from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.

so if the government takes her house under imminent domain, would that be the government deciding that her rights weren't important?
see, we have her stating that it's okay to use guns against the government if the government feels your rights aren't important. what we don't have from her is what she believes that would mean.

either way, to the cliven bundys out there, this is exactly what they want to hear. it's validation for their armed resistance to the government. tell me how encouraging that kind of behavior is responsible

"I believe in the right to defend myself and my family"

YOU are adding all of this into it, all she said was defend.
Sorry.

are you purposefully ignoring that she said she would use her gun against the government if it decided her rights were not important? if you aren't, what type of scenario do you think she had in mind when she said that?

Not sure why you find that so alarming. It is the purpose of the 2nd amendment after all.

because in our modern times, with the multiple options for recourse available to us, taking up arms against the government is unacceptable.

No it's not. When politicians are no longer to be trusted to follow the Constitution and your vote no longer counts you have no choice. In fact it's your duty as an American to put things right.

 

[rightwinger]

no, that's exactly what she said.
so if the government takes her house under imminent domain, would that be the government deciding that her rights weren't important?
see, we have her stating that it's okay to use guns against the government if the government feels your rights aren't important. what we don't have from her is what she believes that would mean.

either way, to the cliven bundys out there, this is exactly what they want to hear. it's validation for their armed resistance to the government. tell me how encouraging that kind of behavior is responsible

"I believe in the right to defend myself and my family"

YOU are adding all of this into it, all she said was defend.
Sorry.

are you purposefully ignoring that she said she would use her gun against the government if it decided her rights were not important? if you aren't, what type of scenario do you think she had in mind when she said that?

Not sure why you find that so alarming. It is the purpose of the 2nd amendment after all.

because in our modern times, with the multiple options for recourse available to us, taking up arms against the government is unacceptable.

No it's not. When politicians are no longer to be trusted to follow the Constitution and your vote no longer counts you have no choice. In fact it's your duty as an American to put things right.

Sounds like second amendment remedies to me

How did that work out for Sharon Angle